From: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices |
Date: | 2005-12-21 23:36:45 |
Message-ID: | 60d5jqja42.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:34:12AM +0100, ipv(at)tinet(dot)org wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Utilize <b>CLUSTER;</b> (after vacuum) to reorder the data.
>
> Why would you vacuum when cluster is just going to wipe out the dead
> tuples anyway?
There is one reason to VACUUM before running CLUSTER...
That is that VACUUM will be *guaranteed* to draw all the pages into memory.
Subsequently, you can be certain that the pages are in cache, and that
the CLUSTER should need to do minimal I/O to read data into memory.
If I'm considering clustering the Slony-I "sl_log_1" table, forcing it
into memory *is* something I'll consider doing in order to minimize
the time that would-be writers are blocked from writing...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html
Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes.
-- email sig, Brian Servis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-21 23:40:44 | Re: [HACKERS] problem with nasty latin2 sorting |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-12-21 23:14:10 | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Smith | 2005-12-22 00:59:24 | Re: Help on a complex query (avg data for day of the week) |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-12-21 17:56:21 | Re: Problem obtaining MAX values FROM TABLE |